Geotechnical Engineering Report

Siouxland Energy Compressor Station

Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022
Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

Prepared for:
Primoris Design and Construction
Houston, Texas

Prepared by:
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Omaha, Nebraska
August 25, 2022

Primoris Design and Construction

14455 Primoris Way
Houston, Texas 77048

Attn: Debra Chansamouth

P: (346) 352-5050
E: dchansamouth@[Link]

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Siouxland Energy Compressor Station
3890 Garfield Avenue
Sioux Center, Iowa
Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

Dear Debra:

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has performed subsurface exploration, laboratory testing,
and geotechnical engineering analyses the referenced project. Terracon’s services were
performed in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. P05225110. This report presents
the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations
concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations, slabs-on-ground and
pavements for the proposed Siouxland Energy Compressor Station project.

Many assumptions have been made to prepare this report and therefore should be considered
preliminary. A supplemental geotechnical exploration and report will be required to provide design-
level geotechnical recommendations once project information (site layout, structure loading,
grading, etc.) is available.

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please contact us if you have any
questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service.

Sincerely,
Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Andrew J. Miller, P.E. Bradley A. Levich, P.E.

Department Manager Senior Principal

Distribution: Addressee (pdf)

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 15080 A Circle Omaha, NE 68144

P (531) 571-7113 F (402) 330 -7606 [Link]
REPORT TOPICS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 4
GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................... 6
GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW ........................................................................................ 7
EARTHWORK ............................................................................................................... 10
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ......................................................................................... 16
DEEP FOUNDATIONS.................................................................................................. 19
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................................... 21
FLOOR SLABS............................................................................................................. 22
PAVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 23
FROST CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................... 27
GENERAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................... 28

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. Orange Bold text in the report indicates a referenced
section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on the
GeoReport logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at
[Link].

ATTACHMENTS

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS
EXPLORATION RESULTS
SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

 Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station
3890 Garfield Avenue
Sioux Center, Iowa
Terracon Project No. 05225147R01
August 25, 2022

INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our preliminary subsurface exploration and geotechnical
engineering services performed for the proposed compressor station to be located at 3890
Garfield Avenue in Sioux Center, Iowa.

As requested, the field exploration included performing two soil borings to depths of about 60 feet
below existing grades. Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown on Site Location
and Exploration Plan, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil
samples obtained during the field exploration are included on the boring logs in Exploration
Results.

The purposes of the exploration and report are to provide information and geotechnical
engineering recommendations relative to:

■ Soil conditions ■ Foundation design and construction

■ Groundwater conditions ■ Slab design and construction
■ Site preparation and earthwork ■ Seismic site classification per IBC
■ Excavation considerations ■ Pavement design and construction
■ Subsurface drainage considerations ■ Frost considerations

The geotechnical engineering recommendations in this report have been provided for planning
and preliminary design of the compressor station. The recommendations in this report should
be considered preliminary, as the site layout, grading information, and the majority of
structure and equipment loading was not available at the time of this report. Once this
information becomes available, it should be provided to Terracon so a supplemental geotechnical
exploration can be completed and additional / alternate recommendations can be provided.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

SITE CONDITIONS

Item Description
As shown on Site Location, the site (pictured below, Google Earth Street View,
Nov. 2021) is located on the northwest end of the existing ethanol facility located
at 3890 Garfield Avenue in Sioux Center, Iowa.
The approximate Latitude and Longitude of the project site is 43.0883° N
96.2338° W.

Site Location

Terracon reviewed historical aerial imagery from Google Earth to review current
and previous development of the site. Based on this historical image circa 2006,
a cluster of grain bins were previously located in the northern extent of the
proposed site. This cluster of bins was razed circa 2007.

General Site
Description
and
Existing
Improvements

As shown by Site Location and in Existing Topography below, the project site
is currently developed green space.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

Item Description
A site plan with topographic contours was not available at the time of this report.
Based on contours obtained from the Iowa Geographic Map Server (pictured
below), surface elevations across the compressor footprint fall from northwest to
southeast with approximately 4 feet of relief (i.e. 1,402 feet to 1,398 feet).

Existing
Topography

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Item Description
■ “27 Additional Sites Geotechnical Scope of Work”, prepared by PSC,
dated February 14, 2022
■ “Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Specification (PIP CVS02010)”
Information Provided
complete revision, dated March 2016
■ “Geotechnical Engineering Services Report Checklist (CVS02010-F)”
dated March 2016

■ Mechanical/Compressor Building
• Pre-engineered steel building, clear-span to perimeter walls
• 60 feet by 110 to 130 feet
• Slab-on-ground
• One or two, 4-stage reciprocating compressors, a Wastewater
Tank, an Oil/Water Separator, and an Air Compressor will be
housed in the building
• An overhead crane will be installed for building operations.
Proposed ■ CO2 Pump/Meter Skid Building
Structures • Pre-engineered steel building
and • 60 by 40 feet or smaller
Equipment • Slab-on-ground
■ PDC Building
• Pre-fabricated or pre-engineered steel
• 20 by 35 feet, or smaller
■ Intercoolers and Aftercoolers
■ Cooling Towers and Pumps
• Total areas of 500 to 750 square feet expected
■ Dehydration Unit / TEG Contactor / Scrubber
■ Overhead Pipe Racks
■ Mechanical/Compressor Building
• The building foundation system would typically consist of shallow,
spread footing foundations.
• Reciprocating Compressors are expected to be supported on
individual mats/block foundations and will be independent of the
Foundation building floor slab. The compressor foundations are expected to be
Systems at least a few feet in thickness.
• The Oil/Water Separator and Air Compressor may be supported
on the building floor slab.
• The Wastewater tank may require a mat/slab foundation,
independent of the building floor slab, rather than being supported
on the floor slab.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

Item Description

■ CO2 Pump/Meter Skid Building

• The building foundation system would typically consist of shallow
spread footing foundations.
• The CO2 Pump / Meter Skid is expected to be supported on a
pedestal or track system on the floor slab.
■ PDC Building
• The building foundation system could consist of shallow spread
footing foundations, a thickened edge or turned-down slab, or
drilled shaft/post foundations.
■ Intercoolers and Aftercoolers
Foundation • This equipment will be located outside, adjacent to the Compressor
Systems Building. We understand the cooler systems may be supported on
(continued) an exterior mat/slab or combined/strip footings, or individual pad
and pier footings.
■ Cooling Towers and Pumps
• The towers are expected to be supported on mat/slab foundations
• Pumps are expected to be supported on individual pads/footings.
■ Dehydration Unit / TEG Contactor / Scrubber
• Equipment is expected to be supported on an exterior mat/slab.
■ Overhead pipe racks
• Individual pipe supports are commonly supported on spread
footings with a pier extended above the ground surface. Individual
drilled shafts have also been utilized.

■ Mechanical Compressor Building

• Perimeter Columns: 40 kips
• Walls: 2 kips per lineal foot (klf)
• Floor Slabs: 150 psf
Maximum Loads and ■ Reciprocating Compressor weight: 215 kips
Contact Pressures ■ Cooling Tower Mat Pressure: 750 to 1,000 psf (assumed)
■ Dehydration unit (TEG) shipping weight: 36,000 pounds.
■ Isolated Pipe Rack footings: 15 kips (assumed)

Loading information for the remaining equipment was not provided.

Grading plans were not available at the time of this report. We assumed
maximum cuts and fills of 2 feet will be required to establish final grades in
Grading
our geotechnical engineering evaluations for this project. A finished elevation
of 1,400 feet has been assumed for this report.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

Subsurface Profile

We have developed a general characterization of the soil and groundwater conditions based upon
our review of the boring information and the geologic setting. This characterization, termed
GeoModel, forms the basis for our geotechnical evaluations and recommendations. The
GeoModel is based upon our boring information across the site. It is important to note that
variations can occur between boring locations and across the site. Previous construction and
grading may have created additional variations. Conditions encountered at each boring location
are indicated on the individual boring logs. The boring logs and GeoModel are presented in
Exploration Results.

The depths in the following table are approximate and are in reference to the existing grades at
the time the borings were performed. Based on the results of the borings and laboratory testing,
subsurface conditions at the boring locations can be generalized as follows:

GeoModel Approximate Depth to

Material Description Consistency
Stratum Bottom of Stratum (feet)
Surficial
Less than about ½ foot Grass, root zone (topsoil) N/A
Materials
■ Fat clay
1 – Fill 3 N/A
■ Dark brown
■ Lean to fat clay
2 – Loess 6 to 8 Med. stiff to stiff
■ Brown, grayish brown
Below termination depth of ■ Lean clay with sand
3 – Glacial Till Very stiff
the borings ■ Brown, brownish gray

Groundwater Conditions

The boreholes were observed while drilling for the presence and level of groundwater. The water
levels observed in the boreholes are summarized in the table below and provided on the boring logs
in the attached Exploration Results.

Boring Boring Elevation Approximate Depth to Groundwater 2 Groundwater

1 Elevation (ft.)
Number (ft.) During Drilling (ft.) After Drilling (ft.)
B-1 1,402 28 30 1,372
B-2 1,398 35 40 1,358
1. Interpolated from contours on the Iowa GIS
2. Below ground surface

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

A relatively long period of time is necessary for a groundwater level to develop and stabilize in a
borehole within fine-grained soils. Long-term monitoring in cased holes or piezometers would be
required for a better evaluation of the groundwater conditions and seasonal fluctuations.
Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff,
and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater
levels during construction or at other times during the life of the compressor station may vary from
than the levels indicated on the boring logs. In addition, perched water can develop within variable,
existing fill, near the interface of existing fill and native soils, and atop less permeable fine-grained
glacial till soil. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations and development of perched water
conditions should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the
project.

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

Existing Fill and Foundation Alternatives

Both borings encountered existing fill consisting of high-plasticity, fat clay to a depth of 3 feet
below existing grade. Based on the information from our borings, the fill appears to have been
placed in a controlled manner, but we have no records to confirm whether the fill was placed in a
controlled manner or to indicate the degree of control. If such records are found, the information
should be provided to Terracon for review; additional and/or alternate recommendations may then
be provided. The possible presence of undocumented, existing fill will therefore affect site
preparation/earthwork and foundations for the project. The owner and contractor will need to
consider the risks associated with support of new equipment over the undocumented existing fill
compared to the construction cost savings that can be recognized by leaving existing fill below a
foundation. Only the removal of undocumented existing fill, and subsequent replacement with
tested / approved documented fill, would eliminate risks related to settlement of foundations/slabs
supported over the possible poorly compacted existing fill.

In the event some lightly-loaded foundations and slabs are supported over the existing fill, the
existing fill should be tested and probed to a depth of at least one footing width during foundation
excavations, to evaluate whether the existing fill is comprised of suitable material and exhibits
sufficient strength to support the structures. If poorly compacted existing fill or otherwise
unsuitable fill material is encountered in a foundation excavation, the existing fill should be
removed and replaced with properly compacted fill.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

Previous Site Improvements

As displayed by the historical images in Site Conditions, a cluster of grain storage bins were
located near the northern extent of the compressor site. Terracon was not involved with the
demolition of these structures and any associated utilities. It is possible that foundations and/or
utilities have been left in-place, along with associated utility trench backfill. Recommendations to
evaluate this area prior to construction have been provided in Earthwork.

Expansive Soil

Finished grades and FFE’s of the proposed structures are not known at this time. Understanding
that there is about 4 feet of fall across the compressor area footprint, we anticipate the high-
plasticity existing fill may be left at finished grade in all areas of the pad. Considering high-
plasticity soils present shrink and swell concerns with slight changes in moisture conditioning, we
recommend conducting a minimum 24-inch undercut of these expansive soils that remain below
the floor/mat slab subbase as discussed in Earthwork. The undercut should be replaced with low-
plasticity clay or chemically stabilized native soils. The existing fill should not be used as grade
raise fill due to shrink and swell concerns. The underlying loess is also moderate-plasticity and
not suitable for reuse within 24 inches of the slab. Low-plasticity replacement material will likely
need to be imported. Chemical treatment (i.e. hydrated lime, reactive fly ash, portland cement) of
on-site material may also be considered. Chemical treatment options and application rates can
be evaluated further in a design-level study.

Settlement

A grading plan was not available as of the date on this report. We understand there is about 4
feet of fall from northwest to southeast across the compressor footprint based on the Iowa GIS
contours. For purposes of this preliminary report, fill placement nearing about 2 feet is assumed
to establish a level compressor footprint. Limited fill placement of this magnitude is not anticipated
to cause more than ½” of settlement, and most of this settlement will occur during fill placement.
No settlement delay periods will be necessary for this limited fill placement. For fill placements
exceeding 2 feet, additional recommendations have been provided in Earthwork.

Anticipated Foundation Support

Provided the fill and native soils are observed, tested, and approved as described in this report,
it is our opinion that the Mechanical Building, the Reciprocating Compressors, the Cooling Tower,
and the Wastewater/Oil Storage Tank can be supported by the on-site soils on a shallow
foundation system (e.g. shallow mats, spread footings, strip footings, etc.) with a reduced bearing
capacity as discussed in Shallow Foundations.

We anticipate that any planned pre-engineered buildings would be supported on shallow

foundations; however, drilled shafts can also be considered. Drilled shafts would transfer

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

foundation/slab loads below the existing fill. Settlement of foundations/slabs would be less than 1
inch if drilled shafts were utilized and would eliminate risk of excessive total and differential
foundation settlement for the owner. Recommendations for this foundation option have been
provided in Deep Foundations.

Since the underlying compressible, medium stiff loess layer is relatively shallow throughout the
compressor footprint, consideration could be made for overexcavating the loess down to the
underlying glacial till layer, followed by replacement with structural fill up to finished grade. Since
the excavated material will consist of high-plasticity clay fill and moderate-plasticity clay loess, the
material should be chemically treated (e.g. hydrated lime, Portland cement, reactive fly ash)
during the replacement process. It should be noted that hydrated lime is the preferred option; the
latter two options rely on bonding clay particles together to mitigate swell and this bond will be
broken with disturbance from excavations. The overexcavation and chemical treatment option
would reduce the risk of shrink-swell, but also improve the bearing conditions, provide a more
stable working surface (especially during high precipitation months). This can be evaluated further
in a follow up, design-level geotechnical study.

Frost Heave of Shallow Foundations and Exterior Slabs

The on-site cohesive materials are susceptible to frost penetration and will be sensitive to
changes in moisture conditions and disturbance from construction activities. The degree of frost
action ranges from low to high based on frost depth, availability of water, and frost-susceptibility
of shallow soil/material. Differential heaving can occur when moisture conditions and/or material
types occur non-uniformly below a foundation/slab. Shallow foundations (or the
structures/equipment supported) and connections leading to equipment atop the foundations can
be damaged if the foundations bear above soils that experience frost heave.

Based on our understanding of the project information, exterior slabs/foundations will be placed
at depths shallower than the frost depth (e.g. 3½ feet). The foundation designer(s) should
consider the potential effects of frost heave and thaw on foundations/slabs, and foundations/slabs
that cannot tolerate total and differential movements should be designed to resist or prevent frost
heave. Foundations/slabs that do not bear at or below the frost depth and cannot tolerate vertical
and non-uniform movements from freezing and thawing cycles, should be supported on granular
fill with low frost susceptibility that extends to the frost depth. Granular fill placed below
foundations/slabs should be maintained in a drained condition. Fill placed below
foundations/slabs should meet the requirements in the Earthwork section. In addition, the
provision of void forms should be given consideration for foundations/slabs that are structurally
supported by intermediate or deep foundations (e.g., drilled shafts), if drained granular fill with low
susceptibility to frost is not provided to the frost depth below foundations/slabs. Additional
recommendations and comments regarding movements resulting from freezing and thawing are
provided discussed in the Shallow Foundations section.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

EARTHWORK

Stripping

Prior to placing fill, existing vegetation and root mat should be removed from the compressor
station area. Based on the results of the borings, a stripping depth of at least 6 to 9 inches is
expected to remove vegetation zone; however, stripping depths may vary across the site. A
Terracon geotechnical representative should evaluate stripping depths at the time of construction.

We recommend the north end of the compressor footprint be evaluated after stripping, prior to
any fill placement. Several test pits in the location of the previous grain bin storage structures
should be observed by a Terracon representative to determine that all previous improvements
have been removed, along with any rubble and debris generated during the demolition process.
The test pits should then be backfilled in accordance with the compaction and moisture content
recommendations provided below.

Site Preparation

In the event that underground utility lines extend through an area of a new improvement, poorly
compacted utility trench backfill may be present. Utility lines should be re-routed beyond the area of
the new improvement whenever feasible. Whether the utility line is abandoned or not, any poorly
compacted backfill above the lines and adjacent to new improvements should be removed and
replaced.

As presented in the Geotechnical Characterization and Geotechnical Overview sections,

existing fill was encountered in the borings to a depth of about 3 feet, and this fill consists of high-
plasticity soil. The amount of corrective earthwork required will generally depend on the support
systems selected for the various structures and equipment.

■ Mat/slab foundations: If the owner does not accept the risks associated with supporting
new foundations over the existing fill, the existing fill should be completely removed and
replaced with properly compacted fill, or the new improvements should be supported on
drilled shafts and structurally supported slab. Removal of the fill is recommended to occur
during grading. If the owner does accept the risks with supporting foundations on the fill,
we recommend a minimum 24-inch undercut beneath the mat/slab subbase followed by
replacement with low-plasticity fill due to the shrink/swell potential of the existing fill. Any
poorly compacted and/or unsuitable bearing conditions at the base of the undercut should
be remediated in accordance with Shallow Foundation. Low-plasticity fill will need to be
imported.
■ Conventional shallow spread footings: If the owner does not accept the risks
associated with supporting new foundations over the existing fill, the existing fill should be
completely removed and replaced with properly compacted fill, or the new improvements
should be supported on drilled shafts and structurally supported slab. Removal of the fill

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

is recommended to occur during grading. If the owner does accept the risks with
supporting foundations on the fill, we recommend a representative of Terracon observe
the foundation excavation. Any poorly compacted and/or unsuitable bearing conditions
should be remediated in accordance with Shallow Foundation.
■ Conventional floor slabs: If the owner does not accept the risks associated with
supporting new slabs over the existing fill, the existing fill should be completely removed
and replaced with properly compacted fill. Note, this will likely happen incidentally as a
part of the foundation overexcavations discussed above if that option is selected. In lieu
of this, the new slabs can be structurally supported. If the owner does accept the risks
with supporting slabs on the existing fill, we recommend a minimum 24-inch undercut
beneath the slab subbase followed by replacement with imported low-plasticity fill due to
the shrink/swell potential of the fill. The fill should not be replaced within 24 inches of the
floor slab subbase. Low-plasticity fill will need to be imported.

Following the completion of cuts to subgrade elevations and/or undercuts of existing fills, and
prior to the placement of new fill, subgrades should be evaluated by Terracon personnel. Any
poorly compacted or unstable fill, partly organic materials, or otherwise unsuitable materials
should be removed prior to fill placement. Where applicable, subgrade evaluations should include
the following:

■ Observations and visual classifications of subgrade and granular base materials

■ Probing and sampling for laboratory testing including:
• water content
• organic content
• plastic and liquid (i.e. Atterberg) limits
• laboratory compaction characteristics (i.e. Standard Proctor / Modified Proctor)
■ In-place moisture and density testing
■ Strength and/or cone penetration testing
■ Observing proofrolls prior to fill placement during mass grading
■ Observing proofrolls in drive areas prior to aggregate placement

Where practical in the building, pavement and aggregate drive areas, fine-grained and crushed
stone (sub)grades should be proofrolled with a loaded, tandem-axle dump truck. Proofrolling will
help to delineate low density or disturbed areas prior to the placement of fill, slabs, and
pavements. If unsuitable areas are observed, subgrade improvement consisting of scarification
and recompaction or undercut and replacement will be necessary. Terracon should be retained
to monitor stripping, subgrade stability, existing fill removal, utility abandonment, site excavation,
removal of unsuitable materials, and proofrolling. Terracon can assist in identifying existing fill
soils (or low-strength native soils) that should be undercut and removed, as well as identifying
additional corrective measures for conditions that may become apparent during construction.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

As mentioned in the Geotechnical Overview, consideration could be made for overexcavating

the entire compressor area footprint. This option can be evaluated further in a design-level study.

Fill Material Types

Fill below mat/slab foundations and aggregate-surface drives should meet the following material
property recommendations:

USCS
Fill Type 1 Acceptable Areas for Placement
Classification
■ Below the granular layer(s) for mat/slab foundations
Imported,
and conventional floor slabs
Low-plasticity, CL
■ Below spread footings
Fine-grained
■ Below the aggregate surface for drives
GP, GW, ■ Aggregate base and fill below mat/slab foundations
Imported,
GP-GM, GW-GM ■ Aggregate-surfaced drives
Coarse-grained,
Granular 2 SP, SW ■ Below the aggregate base for mat/slab foundations

The on-site soils should not be reused unless chemically

On-site soil 3 CL/CH, CH
treated.

1. Fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material should
not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. Material with organic contents greater
than 5 percent should not be used for fill below foundations and aggregate-surfaced drives. By our
definition, low plasticity material would have a liquid limit (LL) of 45 or less, and a plasticity index (PI) of
20 or less. Each proposed fill material type should be sampled and evaluated by the geotechnical
engineer prior to its delivery and/or use.
2. Specific gradations and material types will be needed for specific applications. Relatively clean granular
material is recommended immediately below mat/slab foundations where there is a “turned down” edge
bearing at frost elevation. Material with more than 6 percent fines should not be placed within above frost
depth on exterior mats and slabs-on-ground where there is no turned down edge to cutoff water infiltration
into the clean aggregate due to freezing and thawing concerns.
3. Hand sorting of rubble and debris may be necessary in the existing fill layer. It should be noted that
chemical treatment and clay compaction can be difficult during cool or cold weather. Compaction can also
be difficult in relatively small areas, and over lower strength/density and marginally stable subgrades.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

Fill Placement and Compaction Recommendations

Structural fill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the following:

Item Description
■ 9 inches in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelled compaction
equipment is used
Maximum ■ 4 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e. jumping
Fill Lift Thickness jack or plate compactor) is used
■ 10 to 12 inches for a “stabilizing/bridging layer” over an unstable
subgrade, if required
■ 98 percent
• Bearing, granular material below mat/slab foundations
Minimum
• Upper 9” of the aggregate drive subgrade, and the aggregate drive
Compaction
■ 95 percent
Requirements 1, 2
• All other locations and elevations
▪ All locations if on-site soils are chemically treated
■ Low plasticity fine-grained: -2 to +3 percent
■ Chemically treated moderate- and high-plasticity fine grained: 0 to +3
Water Content Range
percent
from Optimum 1, 3
■ Coarse-grained/Granular: Workable moisture conditions, generally -3 to
+3 percent
1. As determined by the ‘standard Proctor’ test (ASTM D 698). We recommend that each lift of fill be tested
for water content and compaction prior to the placement of additional fill or concrete. Should the results of
the in-place density tests indicate the specified water content or compaction limits have not been met, the
area represented by the test should be reworked and retested, as required, until the specified moisture and
compaction requirements are achieved.
2. If the granular material is a coarse sand or gravel, or of a uniform size, or has a low fines content,
compaction comparison to relative density may be more appropriate. In this case, granular materials should
be compacted to at least 70 percent relative density (ASTM D 4253 and D 4254). Actual compaction
requirements for coarse, uniform, or low fines content granular material should be based on laboratory test
results.
3. The gradation of a granular material affects its stability and the water content required for proper
compaction. Moisture should be maintained at levels satisfactory for compaction to be achieved without
the granular fill bulking during placement or pumping when proofrolled.

Settlement

A relatively thin layer (3 to 5 feet in thickness) of compressible loess deposits was encountered
in both borings. Fill placed atop the loess deposits will consolidate the loess and cause settlement.
The amount of settlement will be dependent on the amount of fill placed. We estimate about ⅛
to ¼ inch of settlement per vertical foot of new fill, with much of the settlement occurring during
fill placement and the remaining settlement occurring over several weeks after completion of fill
placement. No settlement delay would be necessary for the assumed limited fill placement of 2

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

feet or less. For areas where fill exceeds 2 feet, a settlement delay period of about 3 to 4 weeks
would be necessary between completion of fill placement to finished grade and commencement
of construction in the fill areas of the compressor footprint. However, construction may commence
in the cut areas of the compressor footprint during this time to alleviate scheduling constraints
associated with the delay period.

As discussed in Geotechnical Overview, since the compressible layer is relatively thin,

consideration could be made for undercutting the compressible layer to eliminate the need for a
settlement delay.

Exterior Grading and Drainage

Poor site drainage and ponding of water adjacent to structures and equipment foundations
increases the potential for frost heave and settlement and can result in soil movements greater than
those discussed in this report. Excessive moisture can also reduce the support capability of
subgrades and contribute to poor performance of drives/pavements, and lead to excessive
settlement and cracking of foundations/slabs.

Finished grading slopes should promote drainage away from the structures and drives. We
recommend final grades for seeded and landscaped areas be sloped at least 5 percent within 10
feet around the buildings. After construction and landscaping, final grades should be verified to
document effective drainage has been achieved. Grades around the structures and equipment
foundations should also be periodically inspected and adjusted as necessary as part of the
maintenance program for the facility. We recommend cohesive backfill be placed in utility trenches
and adjacent to foundations, and this backfill be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor
maximum dry density to help prevent surface water infiltration. Roof drains should be extended to
discharge on pavements or in green spaces more than 5 feet from the buildings. Pavements or
sidewalks installed adjacent to structures and equipment should slope away at a grade of 2 percent
or more.

General Earthwork and Construction Considerations

The clays encountered in the borings will be sensitive to disturbance from construction activity and
water seepage. If precipitation occurs immediately prior to or during construction, the near-surface
soils could increase in moisture content and become more susceptible to disturbance. Construction
activity should be monitored, and should be curtailed if the construction activity is causing subgrade
disturbance. A Terracon representative can help with monitoring and developing recommendations
to avoid subgrade disturbance.

Surface water should not be allowed to pond and soak into the soil during construction. Construction
staging should provide drainage of surface water and precipitation away from the structures,
equipment slabs/foundations, floor slabs, and pavement areas. Any water that collects over or
adjacent to construction areas should be promptly removed, along with any softened or disturbed

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

soils. Surface water control in the form of sloping surfaces, drainage ditches and trenches, and
potentially sump pits and pumps, will be important to avoid ponding and associated delays due to
precipitation and seepage.

Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade moisture
content prior to construction of slabs/foundations and aggregate-surface drives. Construction
traffic over the completed subgrade should be avoided. The site should also be graded to prevent
ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should
become frozen, desiccated, saturated, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed or
it should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to further construction.

As a minimum, all temporary excavations should be sloped or braced as required by Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, "Excavations and
Trenches" and other applicable codes) regulations to provide stability and safe working conditions.
Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the means,
methods, and sequencing of construction operations. All excavations should comply with
applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and
Trench Safety Standards. Reference to this OSHA requirement should be included in the job
specifications.

Construction Observation and Testing

The site preparation and earthwork efforts should be monitored by Terracon personnel.
Monitoring should include documentation of adequate removal of vegetation and topsoil, proof-
rolling, and mitigation of areas delineated by the proof-rolling to require mitigation.

Each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked as necessary, prior to the
placement of additional lifts of fill. Each lift of fill should be tested for density and water content at
a frequency of at least one test for every 2,500 square feet of compacted fill during grading in the
compressor station area, and at a frequency of at least one test for every 5,000 square feet in
pavement areas. Where grading operations are performed in smaller areas, a minimum of two
tests should be performed on each lift of fill.

One density and water content test is recommended for each lift, every 50 linear feet of compacted
utility trench backfill.

Bearing soils exposed in footing foundation excavations should be evaluated by Terracon

personnel. In the event that unsuitable or unanticipated conditions are encountered, Terracon can
suggest mitigation options such as those discussed in Shallow Foundations.

In addition to documenting construction progress, retaining Terracon during the construction

phase of the project provides the continuity to maintain Terracon’s evaluation of subsurface

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 15

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

conditions, including assessing variations and associated corrective measures or design

changes.

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Spread Footing Design Recommendations

If the site has been prepared in accordance with the requirements noted in Earthwork, the
following design parameters are applicable for shallow spread footings:

Item Description
1 1,500 psf
Net allowable bearing pressure
■ Isolated/Columns: 30 inches
Minimum foundation dimensions
■ Strip/Walls: 16 inches

Ultimate passive resistance 2 ■ 270 pcf (fine-grained backfill)

(equivalent fluid pressures) ■ 360 pcf (coarse-grained/granular backfill)

Ultimate coefficient of sliding ■ 0.35 (on compacted lean clay or thin granular base)
friction 3 ■ 0.45 (on at least 2 feet of compacted crushed stone)
Minimum embedment depth
below finished grade for frost 42 inches
protection 4
■ Total: Less than 1 inch
Estimated Foundation Settlement
■ Differential: Less than 2/3 inch over 30 feet
1. The net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden
pressure at the footing base elevation. This could be increased with a complete removal of the
compressible loess layer and replacement with structural fill, as generally discussed in Earthwork.
2. Use of passive earth pressures require the sides of the excavation for the spread footing foundation to
be nearly vertical and the concrete placed neat against these vertical faces or that the footing forms be
removed and compacted fill be placed against the vertical footing face.
3. Can be used to compute sliding resistance where foundations are placed on suitable soil/materials.
4. Embedment necessary to minimize the effects of frost and/or seasonal water content variations.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 16

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

Mat/Slab Foundation Design Recommendations

The maximum mat/slab contact pressures for the Cooling Tower, Air Compressor, Oil/Water
Separator, and CO2 Pump/Meter Skid are expected to be less than 1,000 pounds per square foot
(psf) and have small contributary areas of loading.

As a minimum, foundation bearing subgrades should be at frost-depth, relatively uniform in

composition and strength, and observed by a Terracon representative. Where foundation designs
do not extend to frost depth, compacted/drained non-frost susceptible granular fill should extend
to the frost depth. The requirements for material types and fill placement and compaction are
presented in the Earthwork section.

The following parameters can be considered for design of mat/slab foundations for the Air
Compressor, Oil/Water Separator, and CO2 Pump/Meter Skid:

Item Description

Maximum Mat/Slab Contact Pressure 1 Less than 1,000 psf

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) 2 See Note 2

Varies based on sustained contact loading:

Estimated Total Settlement 3 ■ Up to 500 psf = Up to 1 inch
■ Up to 1,000 psf = Up to 1½ inch

Estimated Differential Settlement 3 2/3 of total settlement over 30 feet

■ 0.35 (on compacted lean clay or thin granular base)

Ultimate Coefficient of Sliding Friction 4 ■ 0.45 (on at least 2 feet of compacted crushed stone)

Minimum Foundation Embedment below

42 inches
Finished Grade for frost protection 5
1. The maximum contact or bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding
overburden pressure at the footing base elevation.
2. In order to evaluate the modulus of subgrade reaction, Terracon should be provided the design maximum
loads and foundation dimensions. Terracon should evaluate larger areas based on the loads and
dimensions, pressure distribution on the bearing soil, and settlement tolerances.
3. Differential settlement on the order of 2/3 of the total can occur across more flexible or semi-rigid mats.
Foundation settlement will depend on variations in the subsurface profile, the structural loading conditions,
embedment depth of the foundation, the thickness of compacted fill, and the quality of the earthwork
operations and foundation construction. Assumes expansive soils are mitigated as discussed in
Earthwork. Reduced settlement can be achieved with an overexcavation and replacement of the loess
layer as discussed in Earthwork.
4. Neglect for foundations subject to net uplift conditions.
5. Embedment necessary to minimize the effects of frost and/or seasonal water content variations.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 17

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

Foundation Construction Considerations

Refer to Earthwork for foundation bearing improvement recommendations with respect to the
existing fill and associated expansive properties.

Terracon should be retained to observe and test the bearing materials exposed in all foundation
excavations. The base of foundation excavations should be free of poorly compacted fill, water,
and loose/soft/disturbed soil/material, prior to placing granular fill and concrete. Concrete should
be placed soon after excavation to reduce the potential for bearing soil disturbance. Excessively
wet or dry material or any loose/disturbed material in the bottom of foundation excavations should
be removed before foundation concrete is placed.

Where poorly compacted/disturbed fill, partly organic material, or lower density/strength soil is
encountered at the base of a foundation excavation, the excavation should be extended deeper
to suitable soil/material, and the foundation could bear directly on the soil at the lower level or on
lean concrete backfill placed in the excavation. Alternatively, the foundation could bear on
compacted fill or lean concrete extending down to suitable soil. Overexcavation for backfill
placement below foundations should extend laterally beyond all edges of the foundation at least
8 inches per foot of overexcavation depth below the “Design Footing Level”. The overexcavation
should then be backfilled up to the “Design Footing Level” with properly compacted fill, as
recommended in the Earthwork section. The overexcavation and backfill procedures are
illustrated in the following figures.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 18

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

DEEP FOUNDATIONS
We understand that pre-fabricated buildings may be utilized and potentially supported on drilled
shafts. Other structures and equipment could also be supported on drilled shaft foundations.

Drilled Shaft Axial Design Recommendations

Parameters for design of drilled shaft foundations are provided in the Design Parameters for
Drilled Shafts table in the attached Supporting Information. The values shown for allowable
side resistance and end bearing pressure include factors of safety (FOS) of at least 2 and 3,
respectively. Drilled shafts should extend into the bearing stratum at least one shaft diameter for
the allowable end bearing pressures in the tables and extend at least 10 feet below final grade or
4 times the shaft diameter, whichever is greater. A minimum shaft diameter of 30 inches should
be used for drilled shafts that require end bearing in order to permit satisfactory bearing surface
cleaning and observation. The actual lengths should be adjusted based on the actual depth to
suitable bearing soil observed during drilling of each shaft excavation.

Due to the potential effects of frost, desiccation/moisture variations, and drilling disturbance, we
recommend that the soils within 3.5 feet of final grade be assumed to develop no axial load
resistance. If a combination of end bearing and side resistances are used to develop the required
capacity, the factor of safety or resistance factor used to determine the end bearing resistance
should be consistent with the amount of movement expected to mobilize side resistance.

The allowable side resistance is applicable to compressive loading. Allowable compressive

capacities of individual shafts may be computed by multiplying the embedded surface area of the
shaft in a particular depth range by the side resistance value for that zone and adding the actual end
area of the shaft times the end bearing value. The compressive side resistance values can also be
used to resist temporary uplift loads without being discounted for transient conditions; however, we
recommend multiplying these values by 2/3 if the uplift condition is sustained for a period. Buoyant
unit weights of the soil and concrete should be used in the calculations below the highest
anticipated groundwater elevation.

Group effects for axial capacity can be neglected and the total capacity of the group taken as a sum
of the individual shaft capacities if adjacent shafts are spaced at least three pile diameters (center-
to-center). Axial capacity reduction can be determined by comparing the allowable axial capacity
determined from the sum of individual shafts in a group versus the capacity calculated using the
perimeter and base of the shaft group acting as a unit. The lesser of the two capacities should
be used in design. Design of the shafts as structural members should be in accordance with
applicable building codes.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 19

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

Post-construction settlement of drilled shafts designed and constructed as described in this report
are estimated to be 1-inch or less. Differential settlement between individual shafts is expected to
be ½ to ⅔ of the total settlement.

Drilled Shaft Lateral Resistance Recommendations

Allowable resistance to lateral loads of the portions of grade beams that are located below the frost
depth and bear directly against properly compacted fill or undisturbed stiff natural clay may be
calculated using an allowable passive earth pressure equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 135 pcf
times the depth below the lowest adjacent grade. The passive resistance of the soils against the
foundation above the frost depth should be neglected.

The Design Parameters for Drilled Shafts table in the attached Supporting Information lists
input values for use in LPILE analyses based on our interpretation of the subsurface conditions
encountered in our borings. LPILE will estimate values of kh and E50 based on strength; however,
non-default values of kh should be used where provided. Since deflection or a service limit criterion
will most likely control lateral capacity design, no safety/resistance factor is included with the
parameters.

When shafts are used in groups, the lateral capacities of the shafts in the second, third, and
subsequent rows of the group should be reduced as compared to the capacity of a single,
independent shaft. Guidance for applying p-multiplier factors to the p values in the p-y curves for
each row of pile foundations within a pile group are as follows:

■ Front row: Pm = 0.8;

■ Second row: Pm = 0.4
■ Third and subsequent row: Pm = 0.3.

For the case of a single row of shafts supporting a laterally loaded grade beam, group action for
lateral resistance of shafts would need to be considered when spacing is less than three shaft
diameters (measured center-to-center). However, spacing closer than 3D (where D is the
diameter of the shaft) is not recommended, due to potential for the installation of a new shaft
disturbing an adjacent installed shaft, likely resulting in axial capacity reduction.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 20

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations

Shaft installation should generally conform with the current version of ACI 336.1. Successful
installation of the drilled shaft will depend to a large extent on the suitability of the equipment and
installation procedures used. Conventional excavating and drilling equipment should be provided to
penetrate the soils encountered in the boring. Methods and equipment used for drilled shaft
installation should leave the side and bottom of the shaft free of loose and disturbed material which
would prevent the concrete from contacting undisturbed soil. Drilled shaft foundations should be
designed with a shaft diameter of at least 30 inches to facilitate cleanout.

Permanent casing should not be utilized to a depth of more than 3½ feet below final grade. The
use of a surface casing would help prevent excessive scouring and subsequent enlargement of
the shaft near the slurry level or ground surface. Surface casings which do not penetrate more
than 3½ feet below final grade may be left in-place, if desired, to form a smooth shaft surface.

Concrete should be placed in the shaft the same day as excavation. If this is not feasible, the shaft
should be re-drilled to a slightly larger diameter auger and bottom cleaned. The concrete should be
placed through a sealed tremie extending to the bottom of the shaft excavation.

The volume of concrete placed should be checked against the calculated volume required to
obtain design shaft dimensions. Terracon should review and comment on specifications
developed for shaft installation, and actual shaft installation should be monitored by a Terracon
representative.

If used, pile caps should extend at least 3½ feet below lowest adjacent finished grade for frost
protection.

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design
Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure.
The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted
average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear
strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7 and the International Building Code (IBC).
Based on the soil properties encountered at the site and as described on the exploration logs and
results, it is our professional opinion that the Seismic Site Classification is C. Subsurface
exploration at this site was extended to a maximum depth of about 60 feet. The site properties
below the boring depth to 100 feet were estimated based on our experience and knowledge of
geologic conditions of the general area. Additional deeper borings or geophysical testing may be
performed to confirm the conditions below the current boring depth.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 21

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

FLOOR SLABS

Floor Slab Design Recommendations

We anticipate interior grade supported slab subgrades to be prepared according to Geotechnical

Overview and Earthwork.

Item Description
■ Minimum 6 inches of crushed stone with less than 6 percent passing the
Interior Floor Slab U.S. No. 200 sieve 2, 3, over
Support System 1 ■ 24” of low-plasticity fill or drained NFS granular, over
■ A stable subgrade evaluated by Terracon personnel
Estimated Modulus of
100 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for point loads
Subgrade Reaction 2

1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of building footings or walls to reduce the possibility of floor
slab cracking caused by differential movements between the slab and foundation.
2. Modulus of subgrade reaction is an estimated value based upon our experience with the subgrade condition,
the requirements noted in Earthwork, and the floor slab support as noted in this table. It is provided for point
loads only. For large area loads the modulus of subgrade reaction would be lower.
3. Free-draining granular material should have less than 6 percent fines (material passing the #200 sieve).
Other design considerations such as cold temperatures and condensation development could warrant more
extensive design provisions. The thickness of granular material below floor slabs in unheated structures
sensitive to movements from frost would need to extend to the frost depth in order to minimize movements
related to frost.

Slabs-on-grade should be isolated from structures and utilities to allow independent movement.
Joints should be constructed at regular intervals as recommended by the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) to help control the location of any cracking. Keyed and doweled joints should be
considered. The owner should be made aware that differential movement between the slabs and
foundations could occur.

Where floor slabs are tied to perimeter walls or turn-down slabs to meet structural or other
construction objectives, our experience indicates differential movement between the walls and
slabs will likely be observed in adjacent slab expansion joints or floor slab cracks beyond the
length of the structural dowels. The Structural Engineer should account for potential differential
settlement through use of sufficient control joints, appropriate reinforcing, or other means.

The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade that will be
covered with moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will support equipment
sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer
should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and
placement of a vapor retarder.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 22

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

Floor Slab Construction Considerations

On most project sites, the floor slab subgrades are developed early in the construction phase.
However as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations,
construction traffic, desiccation, rainfall, etc. As a result, the floor slab subgrade may not be suitable
for placement of base rock and concrete and corrective action will be required.

We recommend the floor slab subgrade be rough graded and then proofrolled with a loaded tandem
axle dump truck prior to fine grading and placement of base rock. Particular attention should be
paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled
trenches are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by
removing and replacing the affected material with compacted fill. Floor slab subgrades should be
moisture conditioned and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately
prior to placement of the aggregate base course and concrete.

Design parameters for floor slabs assume the requirements for Earthwork have been followed.
Specific attention should be given to positive drainage away from the structure and positive drainage
of the aggregate base beneath the floor slab.

PAVEMENTS

General Pavement Comments

The pavements should be underlain by a layer of compacted fill prepared in accordance with the
recommendations presented in the Earthwork section. Pavement design methods are intended
to provide structural sections with adequate thickness over a subgrade such that wheel loads are
reduced to a level the subgrade can support. The support characteristics of the subgrade for
pavement design do not account for movements related to frost nor movements related to
settlement of variable, existing fill. Thus, the pavement may be adequate from a structural
standpoint, yet still experience cracking and deformation due to movements of the subgrade. It is
important to minimize moisture changes in the subgrade and maintain it in a drained condition.

Pavement Thickness Design Recommendations

A formal pavement design has not been completed for this project. The recommended pavement
sections are typical minimum values and thicker pavement sections could be used to reduce
maintenance and extend the expected service life of the pavements. We recommend that a formal
pavement design be completed if unusually high vehicle loads or frequencies are anticipated.
Additional laboratory testing, such as California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test, may also be
recommended. Periodic maintenance will also extend the service life of the pavements and should
include patching and repair of deteriorated areas, crack sealing, and surface sealing.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 23

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

A subgrade CBR of 2.5 was assumed and a corresponding modulus of subgrade reaction of 90
pci was considered. The values were empirically derived based upon our experience with the
describe soil type subgrade soils and our understanding of the quality of the subgrade.

On a preliminary basis, we recommend the following pavement sections:

■ Standard Duty Pavements: For any parking areas subjected to low volumes of automobile
traffic, a PCC pavement section having a thickness of at least 6 inches over a minimum
of 6 inches of aggregate base course, is recommended for these areas.

■ Heavy-Duty Pavements: Aprons and driveways for box, refuse, and service trucks require
increased pavement thicknesses. A minimum 8-inch thick PCC section over a minimum
of 6 inches of aggregate base course is recommended for these areas.

A Portland cement concrete mix design with a minimum 28-day modulus of rupture of 575 psi
should be used for concrete pavements (ASTM C78, Third Point Loading Method). This is roughly
equivalent to a 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi. Portland cement concrete paving
should be air-entrained.

Pavement Construction Considerations

Construction scheduling often involves grading and paving by separate contractors and can
involve a time lapse between the end of grading operations and the commencing of paving.
Disturbance, desiccation or wetting of the subgrade soils between grading and paving can result
in deterioration of the previously completed subgrade. A non-uniform subgrade can result in poor
pavement performance and local failures relatively soon after pavements are constructed. We
recommend the moisture content and density of the subgrade be evaluated within two days prior
to commencing paving operations. A proof roll using heavy equipment similar to that required for
pavement construction is recommended to verify subgrade stability for pavement construction.
Scarification and recompaction may be required. Areas not in compliance with the required
ranges of moisture or density should be moisture conditioned and recompacted. If significant
precipitation occurs after the evaluation or if the surface becomes disturbed, the subgrade
condition should be reviewed by Terracon personnel immediately prior to paving.

Aggregate-Surfaced Drives

In-situ penetration testing should be performed prior to aggregate (and geogrid) placement to
evaluate whether the support conditions considered in the design are present at the site;
especially for areas that are planned to service oversize semi-tractor and trailer loadings.

Aggregate materials should preferably consist of crushed stone which meets Iowa
Department of Transportation specifications for source quality of aggregates. Other aggregates
and granular material could be used; however, the thickness of aggregate may need to be

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 24

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

adjusted to support loadings and would depend on the results of additional laboratory testing of
the desired aggregate materials. Generally, materials with higher fines content will become less
stable when wetted and are more susceptible to frost. However, materials with higher fines
content permit less water to reach to the subgrade. The proposed aggregate gradations should be
provided to the geogrid manufacturer for review prior to site delivery.

We recommend utilizing a layer of geogrid below a layer of crushed stone for areas of the site
that are expected to receive rather significant amounts of construction traffic and/or will
subsequently be used for maintenance operations. On a preliminary basis, an 18-inch section of
crushed aggregate over a single layer of geogrid is recommended. The geogrid would be placed
directly onto the subgrade with a minimum 12” overlap between parallel rows of geogrid. At a
minimum, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade should be compacted to a minimum 98 percent of
the maximum dry density value as determined by ASTM D698 (Standard ‘proctor’).

The surface layer of aggregate should be about 8 inches in thickness and contain 10 percent or
less fines. The lower/base layer of aggregate should be about 10 inches in thickness and consist
of a dense-graded material with 16 percent or less fines. A nominal aggregate size of 1 to 1½
inches can be used. The rut depth expected from the utilization of this section would be on the
order of 1 inch. The recommended aggregate and geogrid section is for drives and does not
apply to crane pads.

Aggregate-surfaced sections reinforced with proprietary geogrid should include one layer of multi-
axial geogrid placed below the aggregate base on the prepared subgrade. Products that can be
used include, but are not limited to, Tensar TX130S, TX140, or BX1100, AllianceGeo BX Type 1,
TenCate Mirafi BXG110, or approved equivalent. Consult with specific geogrid manufacturers for
final design thicknesses, or suitable products.

Geogrid reinforced pavement design procedures rely on product specific field and laboratory
research, and the manufacturer’s published product literature. The design procedures used to
develop the aggregate thickness recommendations is based on our experience and
understanding of some of the design principles used, but was not an exhaustive comparison of
the various proprietary systems. Geogrid reinforced pavement designs should be required by
independent manufacturers based on their methodologies, and the geogrid material properties to
be used for the design should not be specified or accepted based solely on distinct engineering
properties of the materials. Terracon can assist in review of submitted designs, if requested.

Final grades should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water. Water should not be
allowed to pond on or adjacent to the laydown area. Ponding of water could contribute to moisture
increases in the subgrade soils and subsequent loss of strength and/or possible heaving leading
to excessive rutting or pumping. It is important to note that all aggregate-surfaced drives or roads,
regardless of the thickness or subgrade preparation, will require maintenance to maintain
serviceable wearing surfaces. It is not practical to design a crushed stone section of sufficient

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 25

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

thickness to prevent the need for maintenance. Due to the porous nature of the crushed stone,
precipitation and surface water can infiltrate and soften the subgrade soils, making them
susceptible to rutting.

When potholes, ruts, depressions or yielding subgrades develop, they must be filled with
additional aggregate, not by blading adjacent ridges or high areas into the depressed areas. If
repairs are not made on an as needed basis and soil subgrade failures develop, complete removal
of crushed stone surfacing, repair of unstable subgrade, and replacement of the crushed stone
surfacing will be required.

Pavement Subsurface Drainage Considerations

Preventing subgrade saturation is an important factor in maintaining the subgrade strength. Water
allowed to pond on or next to pavements could saturate the subgrade and cause premature
pavement deterioration. Positive surface drainage should be provided away from the edges of paved
areas, and pavement subgrades and surfaces should be sloped to provide rapid surface drainage.
We recommend pavement subgrades be sloped/crowned at least 2 percent, to promote positive
drainage and to reduce the potential for saturation of the subgrade. Pavements should preferably
drain toward the edge(s) rather than the center, and consideration should be given to the provision
of subsurface drains in areas that exhibit poor drainage characteristics, such as relatively flat areas
that do permit surface water to be shed well beyond the pavement edge.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 26

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

FROST CONSIDERATIONS
The soils on this site are frost susceptible, and small amounts of water can affect the performance
of slabs-on-grade and pavements. Exterior slabs and slab supported elements/equipment should
be anticipated to heave during winter months. If frost action needs to be reduced in critical areas,
we recommend the use of coarse-grained/granular fill with 6 percent or less fines or structural
slabs (e.g., structural stoops in front of building doors). Placement of granular material in large
areas may not be feasible; however, the following recommendations are provided to help reduce
the amount of frost heave:

■ Provide surface drainage away from the building and slabs, and toward the site storm
drainage system.
■ Installing drain tiles around the perimeter of the building, stoops, below exterior slabs and
pavements, and connect them to the storm drainage system.
■ Grading clayey subgrades beneath a more permeable aggregate base, toward the site
drainage system
■ Place less frost susceptible granular fill as backfill beneath slabs and pavements critical
to the project.
■ Place a 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V) transition zone between less-frost susceptible
granular material and other soils.

As an alternative to extending granular fill to the full frost depth, consideration can be made to
placing extruded polystyrene or cellular concrete under a buffer of at least 2.5 feet of granular fill
maintained in a drained condition.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 27

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

GENERAL COMMENTS
As the project progresses, we will address assumptions by incorporating information provided by
the design team. Revised project information that reflects actual conditions important to our
services will be reflected in the final report. The design team should collaborate with Terracon, to
address the assumed and unknown information in this report, and to prepare the final design
plans and specifications. This facilitates the incorporation of our opinions related to
implementation of our geotechnical recommendations.

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications, so comments can
be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the
design and specifications. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the
project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in
this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies
or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical
conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural and man-made
variations will occur between exploration locations or due to the modifying effects of construction
or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after
construction. Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in the final
report, to provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If
variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If
variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be
immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.

Support of pavements and lightly-loaded slabs and footings on or above possible fill materials is
discussed in this report. However, even with the recommended construction procedures, there is
an inherent risk for the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by the
fill will not be discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without
completely removing the existing fill but can be reduced by following the recommendations
contained in this report. To take advantage of the cost benefit of not removing all of the existing
fill, the owner must be willing to accept the risk associated with supporting new construction over
the existing fill following the recommended reworking of the material.

Expansive soils are present on this site. This report provides recommendations to help mitigate
the effects of soil shrinkage and expansion. However, even if these procedures are followed,
some movement and (at least minor) cracking in the structure should be anticipated. The severity
of cracking and other damage such as uneven floor slabs may increase if modification of the site
results in excessive wetting or drying of the expansive soils. Eliminating the risk of movement and
distress may not be feasible, but it may be possible to further reduce the risk of movement if

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 28

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

significantly more expensive measures are used during construction. Some of these options are
discussed in this report such as complete replacement of expansive soils or a structural slab.

Our scope of services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or
biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of
pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for
such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence or collaboration are intended for the sole benefit and
exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished
in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third-party
beneficiaries intended. Any third party access to services or correspondence is solely for
information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client. Reliance upon
the services and any work product is limited to our client, and is not intended for third parties. Any
use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No
warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any
use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there
may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact
excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site
characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.
Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering
requirements/design are the responsibility of others.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 29

 ATTACHMENTS

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Boring Layout and Elevations: Based on the GPS coordinates of the boring locations that were
provided by Primoris Design and Construction personnel, Terracon performed a site
reconnaissance visit to layout the borings prior to mobilizing to the site. Boring locations in the
field were determined using a handheld GPS unit (estimated horizontal accuracy of about ± 20
feet). If more precise locations are desired, we recommend the boring locations be surveyed.

Approximate surface elevations indicated on the boring logs were estimated to the nearest 1-foot
using Iowa GIS topographic data. The locations and elevations of the soil borings should be
considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods used to define them.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the borings with an ATV-mounted rotary drill
rig using continuous flight hollow-stem augers, as indicated on the boring logs. Soil sampling was
performed using thin-walled tube and split-barrel sampling methods.

In the thin-walled tube sampling procedure, a thin-walled, seamless steel tube with a sharp cutting
edge was pushed hydraulically into the soil to obtain a relatively undisturbed sample. In the
split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch outer diameter split-barrel sampling spoon was
driven into the ground by a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number
of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration
is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value. The SPT resistance values,
also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths. The samples were
containerized and transported to our soil laboratory for testing and review. Additionally, we also
observed and recorded groundwater levels during drilling and sampling.

Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs
included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and our interpretation
of the subsurface conditions between samples. Typed boring logs, included in this report, were
prepared from the field logs, and represent the engineer’s interpretation of the field logs and
include modifications based on observations and tests of the samples in our laboratory.

In-situ Electrical Resistivity Testing: In-situ electrical resistivity surveys were performed at the
project site. Testing was performed in general accordance with the Wenner Four Point method
(ASTM G57). “A” spacings of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, and 70 feet. The tests
consisted of three traverses generally oriented in North-South, East-West, and Northeast-
Southwest directions in open areas of the site, away from existing underground and overhead
improvements. The approximate arrays are shown on the Exploration Plan.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 1 of 2

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, Iowa
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147R01

Laboratory Testing

Water content tests were performed on portions of the recovered samples, and density
determinations were performed on the thin-walled tube samples. Unconfined compression tests were
also performed on selected thin-walled tube samples. Atterberg Limits tests were performed on two
samples. A passing #200 sieve test and one-dimensional consolidation test was performed on one
sample. The results of these laboratory tests are provided on the boring logs.

The samples were classified in the laboratory based on visual observation and texture. Additional
laboratory testing could be performed to more accurately classify the samples. The soil descriptions
presented on the boring logs for native soils are in general accordance with the General Notes
and Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), both of which are included in Supporting
Information. The estimated group symbol for the USCS is also shown on the boring logs.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 2 of 2

 SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

Contents:

Site Location Plan

Exploration Plan

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

SITE LOCATION
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, IA
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147

SITE

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: LEBANON, IA (1/1/1968) and SIOUX CENTER, IA
(1/1/1980).
EXPLORATION PLAN
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Sioux Center, IA
August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05225147

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED

NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS
 EXPLORATION RESULTS

Contents:

GeoModel
Boring Logs
Consolidation Test Report
Field Electrical Resistivity Report

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

 GEOMODEL
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station Sioux Center, IA
Terracon Project No. 05225147

1,405 B-1

1,400 1 3 B-2
2 6 1 3
1,395
2 8
1,390

1,385
ELEVATION (MSL) (feet)

1,380

1,375 28
30

1,370
3
1,365 35 3
1,360 40

1,355

1,350

1,345
60

1,340 60

1,335
This is not a cross section. This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only. See individual logs for more information.

Model Layer Layer Name General Description

1 Fill fat clay

2 Loess lean clay

3 Glacial Till lean clay

LEGEND
Fat Clay

Lean Clay/Fat Clay

Glacial Till

NOTES:
Water Observation
Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the
Water Observation geotechnical engineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface
conditions as required for the subsequent geotechnical engineering
for this project.
Groundwater levels are temporal. Significant changes are possible over time. Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground
Water levels shown are as measured during and/or after drilling. In some cases, surface.
boring advancement methods mask the presence/absence of groundwater. See
individual logs for details.
 BORING LOG NO. B-1 Page 1 of 1
PROJECT: Siouxland Energy Compressor Station CLIENT: Primoris Services Corporation
Houston, TX
SITE: 3890 Garfield Avenue
Sioux Center, IA
ATTERBERG

OBSERVATIONS
LOCATION See Exploration Plan

STRENGTH (psf)
MODEL LAYER

SAMPLE TYPE

COMPRESSIVE
GRAPHIC LOG

WATER LEVEL
LIMITS

LABORATORY

CONTENT (%)
UNCONFINED

WEIGHT (pcf)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)

DRY UNIT
RESULTS

HP (psf)

WATER
Latitude: 43.0885° Longitude: -96.2342°

LL-PL-PI
Approximate Surface Elev.: 1402 (Ft.) +/-
DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
vegetation, root zone at the surface
1
FILL - FAT CLAY, trace sand, dark brown 9000+ 18.0 99 53-22-31
3.0 1399+/- (HP)
LEAN TO FAT CLAY (CL/CH), brown, medium stiff 1500 24.9 93
2
6.0 1396+/- (HP)
LEAN CLAY (CL), with fine to coarse sand; trace 5000 20.9 110
gravel, brownish gray, very stiff (HP)
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 05225147 SIOUXLAND ENERGY .GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 7/21/22

5500 4560 17.2 110 44-12-32

10 (HP)

5820 21.9 105

8000 5040 21.1 105

20 (HP)

4870 19.6 109

3-6-9 18.5
30 N=15

3
4-8-11 16.7
N=19

4-7-9 15.5
40 N=16

becoming dark gray at 43 ft. 5-9-12 16.0

N=21

4-5-8 17.7
50 N=13

5-8-14 17.7
N=22

6-9-14 16.7
60.0 Boring Terminated at 60 Feet 1342+/- 60 N=23

Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic

Advancement Method: See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a Notes:

Hollow Stem Auger description of field and laboratory procedures used Energy transfer ratio of 86.9%; hammer efficiency correction is 1.45
and additional data (If any). (March 2021).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
Abandonment Method: symbols and abbreviations.
Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.
Elevations interpreted from Google Earth.

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Boring Started: 06-08-2022 Boring Completed: 06-08-2022
28 ft. while sampling
Drill Rig: 735 Driller: M. Ramirez
30 ft. after casing removal
15080 A Cir
Omaha, NE Project No.: 05225147
 BORING LOG NO. B-2 Page 1 of 1
PROJECT: Siouxland Energy Compressor Station CLIENT: Primoris Services Corporation
Houston, TX
SITE: 3890 Garfield Avenue
Sioux Center, IA
ATTERBERG

OBSERVATIONS
LOCATION See Exploration Plan

STRENGTH (psf)
MODEL LAYER

SAMPLE TYPE

COMPRESSIVE
GRAPHIC LOG

WATER LEVEL
LIMITS

LABORATORY

UNCONFINED

CONTENT (%)

WEIGHT (pcf)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)

DRY UNIT
RESULTS

WATER
HP (psf)
Latitude: 43.0880° Longitude: -96.2334°
LL-PL-PI
Approximate Surface Elev.: 1398 (Ft.) +/-
DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
bare ground at the surface
1 9000+
3.0
FILL - FAT CLAY, with fine to coarse sand, dark 1395+/- 18.3 99
brown (HP)
3500 22.6 95 45-18-27
LEAN TO FAT CLAY (CL/CH), grayish brown, stiff to
2 medium stiff (HP)
1500 28.0 92
8.0 1390+/- (HP)
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 05225147 SIOUXLAND ENERGY .GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 7/21/22

LEAN CLAY (CL), with fine to coarse sand; trace 5500 2990 18.7 110
gravel, brown, very stiff 10 (HP)

6000 5650 18.3 110

(HP)

8000 6260 17.8 112

20 (HP)

becoming dark brownish gray at 23 ft. 5-7-10 15.8

N=17

4-7-9 22.1
30 N=16

3 4-7-10 18.0
N=17

6-10-6 14.1
40 N=16

4-9-10 22.1
N=19

becoming dark gray at 48 ft. 4-7-10 18.1

50 N=17

5-8-10 17.4
N=18

60.0 1338+/- 6-9-13 16.0

Boring Terminated at 60 Feet
60 N=22

Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic

Advancement Method: See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a Notes:

Hollow Stem Auger description of field and laboratory procedures used Energy transfer ratio of 86.9%; hammer efficiency correction is 1.45
and additional data (If any). (March 2021).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
Abandonment Method: symbols and abbreviations.
Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.
Elevations interpreted from Google Earth.

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Boring Started: 06-08-2022 Boring Completed: 06-08-2022

35 ft. while sampling
Drill Rig: 735 Driller: M. Ramirez
40 ft. after casing removal
15080 A Cir
Omaha, NE Project No.: 05225147
 CONSOLIDATION TEST (D2435)

Per ASTM D2435/D2435M, Fig. 3

3
CONS_LOAD-DEF_PROP_STRESS-STRAIN 05225147 SIOUXLAND ENERGY .GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 7/11/22

5
AXIAL STRAIN, (%)

10

11

12
100 1,000 10,000 105

AXIAL EFFECTIVE STRESS, (psf)

LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT.

Natural Initial Cc Cr
Overburden Pc Initial Void
Dry Density LL PI Sp. Gr. (% / log (% / log
Saturation Moisture (pcf) (psf) (psf) stress) stress) Ratio

87.7 % 22.7 % 99.2 45 27 2.70 0.699

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO

See boring log.
CL

NOTES: Specific gravity is assumed.

Test specimen cut from indicated sample; dry density and moisture content may vary from boring log.

Borehole: B-2 Depth: 3 ft Specimen #: 2

PROJECT: Siouxland Energy Compressor PROJECT NUMBER: 05225147

Station

SITE: 3890 Garfield Avenue 15080 A Cir CLIENT: Primoris Services Corporation
Omaha, NE
Sioux Center, IA Houston, TX
 CONSOLIDATION TEST (D2435)

0.70

0.68

0.66
CONS_LOAD-DEF_PROP_STRESS-VOIDRATIO 05225147 SIOUXLAND ENERGY .GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 7/11/22

0.64

0.62
VOID RATIO

0.60

0.58

0.56

0.54

0.52

0.50

0.48
100 1,000 10,000 105

AXIAL EFFECTIVE STRESS, (psf)

LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT.

Natural Initial Cc Cr
Overburden Pc Initial Void
Dry Density LL PI Sp. Gr. (vr / log (vr / log
Saturation Moisture (pcf) (psf) (psf) stress) stress) Ratio

87.7 % 22.7 % 99.2 45 27 2.70 0.699

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO

See boring log.
CL

NOTES: Specific gravity is assumed.

Test specimen cut from indicated sample; dry density and moisture content may vary from boring log.

Borehole: B-2 Depth: 3 ft Specimen #: 2

PROJECT: Siouxland Energy Compressor PROJECT NUMBER: 05225147

Station

SITE: 3890 Garfield Avenue 15080 A Cir CLIENT: Primoris Services Corporation
Omaha, NE
Sioux Center, IA Houston, TX
FIELD ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TEST DATA
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Woodbury County, Iowa
July 19, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05215147

Array Loc. 43.08817, -96.23367

Instrument Supersting R8 Weather Sunny
Serial # SS2001234 Ground Cond. Mostly Dry
Cal. Date October 11, 2021 Tested By Tom Jacobi
Test Date June 22, 2022 MethodWenner 4-pin (ASTM G57-06 (2012); IEEE 81-2012
Notes &
Conflicts
4rraR
Apparent resistivity ρ is calculated as : p = 2a a
1+ −
a2 + 4b2 a2 + b2
Electrode Spacing a Electrode Depth b NW-SE Test E-W Test
Measured Apparent Measured Apparent
[feet] [centimeters] [inches] [centimeters] Resistance R Resistivity ρ Resistance R Resistivity ρ
Ω [Ω-cm] Ω [Ω-cm]
0.5 15 3 8 15.97 2030 13.49 1710
1 30 3 8 6.847 1440 6.915 1450
1.5 46 6 15 5.132 1720 4.614 1550
2 61 6 15 3.918 1650 3.586 1510
3 91 12 30 2.601 1730 2.544 1690
5 152 12 30 1.514 1540 1.532 1560
10 305 12 30 0.788 1540 0.775 1510
15 457 12 30 0.505 1460 0.506 1460
20 610 12 30 0.380 1460 0.371 1430
30 914 12 30 0.240 1380 0.243 1400

Apparent resistivity vs a spacing

Apparent Resistivity R [Ω-cm]

2,100.0

1,600.0

N-S Array
1,100.0
E-W Array

600.0

100.0
1 10 100 1000
Electrode Spacing a [cm]
FIELD ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TEST DATA
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station ■ Woodbury County, Iowa
July 19, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 05215147

Array Loc. 43.08817, -96.23367

Instrument Supersting R8 Weather Sunny
Serial # SS2001234 Ground Cond. Mostly Dry
Cal. Date October 11, 2021 Tested By Tom Jacobi
Test Date June 22, 2022 MethodWenner 4-pin (ASTM G57-06 (2012); IEEE 81-2012
Notes &
Conflicts
4rraR
Apparent resistivity ρ is calculated as : p = 2a a
1+ −
a2 + 4b2 a2 + b2
Electrode Spacing a Electrode Depth b NE-SW Test
Measured Apparent
[feet] [centimeters] [inches] [centimeters] Resistance R Resistivity ρ
Ω [Ω-cm]
0.5 15 3 8 15.53 1970
1 30 3 8 7.069 1480
1.5 46 6 15 4.421 1480
2 61 6 15 3.819 1610
3 91 12 30 2.329 1550
5 152 12 30 1.508 1530
10 305 12 30 0.775 1510
15 457 12 30 0.516 1490
20 610 12 30 0.371 1430
30 914 12 30 0.240 1380

Apparent resistivity vs a spacing

Apparent Resistivity R [Ω-cm]

2,100.0

1,600.0

1,100.0

600.0

100.0
1 10 100 1000
Electrode Spacing a [cm]
 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Contents:

General Notes
Unified Soil Classification System
Design Parameters for Drilled Shafts Table

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

GENERAL NOTES
DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station Sioux Center, IA
Terracon Project No. 05225147

SAMPLING WATER LEVEL FIELD TESTS

N Standard Penetration Test
Water Initially Resistance (Blows/Ft.)
Encountered
Standard Water Level After a (HP) Hand Penetrometer
Shelby
Penetration Specified Period of Time
Tube
Test
Water Level After (T) Torvane
a Specified Period of Time
Cave In (DCP) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
Encountered

Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs are UC Unconfined Compressive
the levels measured in the borehole at the times Strength
indicated. Groundwater level variations will occur
over time. In low permeability soils, accurate
(PID) Photo-Ionization Detector
determination of groundwater levels is not possible
with short term water level observations.
(OVA) Organic Vapor Analyzer

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Soil classification as noted on the soil boring logs is based Unified Soil Classification System. Where sufficient laboratory data
exist to classify the soils consistent with ASTM D2487 "Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes" this procedure is used.
ASTM D2488 "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)" is also used to classify the soils, particularly
where insufficient laboratory data exist to classify the soils in accordance with ASTM D2487. In addition to USCS classification,
coarse grained soils are classified on the basis of their in-place relative density, and fine-grained soils are classified on the basis
of their consistency. See "Strength Terms" table below for details. The ASTM standards noted above are for reference to
methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods are applied as a result of local practice or professional judgment.

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

Exploration point locations as shown on the Exploration Plan and as noted on the soil boring logs in the form of Latitude and
Longitude are approximate. See Exploration and Testing Procedures in the report for the methods used to locate the
exploration points for this project. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was
conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic
maps of the area.

STRENGTH TERMS
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)
(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)
Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual
Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance
procedures or standard penetration resistance
Descriptive Term Standard Penetration or Descriptive Term Unconfined Compressive Strength Standard Penetration or
(Density) N-Value (Consistency) Qu, (psf) N-Value
Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft.
Very Loose 0-3 Very Soft less than 500 0-1
Loose 4-9 Soft 500 to 1,000 2-4
Medium Dense 10 - 29 Medium Stiff 1,000 to 2,000 4-8
Dense 30 - 50 Stiff 2,000 to 4,000 8 - 15
Very Dense > 50 Very Stiff 4,000 to 8,000 15 - 30
Hard > 8,000 > 30

RELEVANCE OF SOIL BORING LOG

The soil boring logs contained within this document are intended for application to the project as described in this document.
Use of these soil boring logs for any other purpose may not be appropriate.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Soil Classification
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Group
Symbol Group Name B
Cu  4 and 1  Cc  3 E GW Well-graded gravel F
Clean Gravels:
Gravels: Less than 5% fines C Cu  4 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E GP Poorly graded gravel F
More than 50% of
coarse fraction Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H
retained on No. 4 sieve Gravels with Fines:
Coarse-Grained Soils: More than 12% fines C Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H
More than 50% retained
on No. 200 sieve Clean Sands: Cu  6 and 1  Cc  3 E SW Well-graded sand I
Sands: Less than 5% fines D Cu  6 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E SP Poorly graded sand I
50% or more of coarse
fraction passes No. 4 Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I
Sands with Fines:
sieve
More than 12% fines D Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I
PI  7 and plots on or above “A” CL Lean clay K, L, M
Inorganic:
Silts and Clays: PI  4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M
Liquid limit less than 50 Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay K, L, M, N
Fine-Grained Soils: Organic:  0.75 OL
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, O
50% or more passes the
No. 200 sieve PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M
Inorganic:
Silts and Clays: PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K, L, M
Liquid limit 50 or more Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay K, L, M, P
Organic:  0.75 OH
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, Q
Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat
A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve. H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.
B Iffield sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles I If soil contains  15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
or boulders, or both” to group name. J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded
K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with
gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly
gravel,” whichever is predominant.
graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.
L If soil contains  30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add
D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded
“sandy” to group name.
sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded
MIf soil contains  30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add
sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay.
2
“gravelly” to group name.
(D30 ) N PI  4 and plots on or above “A” line.
E Cu O PI
= D60/D10 Cc =  4 or plots below “A” line.
D10 x D 60 P PI plots on or above “A” line.
F If soil contains  15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. Q PI plots below “A” line.
G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

 Design Parameters for Drilled Shafts
Siouxland Energy Compressor Station

Terracon Project No. 05225147

Soil Strength
LPILE Parameters Allowable Allowable
Total Parameters
Depth Below Layer General Side End Bearing
Elevation Unit Static
Finished Grade Thickness Soil Resistance 3 Pressure 4
(Feet) Weight Lateral
(Feet) (Feet) Description Cohesion (psf) LPILE Soil Type Strain 50 (psf) (psf)
(pcf) Modulus, K FS ≥ 2 FS ≥ 3
(pci)

Fill / Frost
0 to 3.5 1,400 to 1,396.5 3.5 125 -- Neglect lateral and axial resistance due to frost
Zone

Not
3.5 to 9 1,396.5 to 1,391 5.5 Loess 120 500 150
Recommended

9 to 14 1,391 to 1,386 5 125 1,800 Stiff Clay w/o 500 5,500

Default 2
Free Water 1
14 to 52 1,386 to 1,348 38 Glacial Till 130 2,750 750 8,750

52 to 60 1,348 to 1,340 8 130 1 3,600 1,000 12,000

1. Groundwater elevation assumed to be the surface elevation at a depth of 30 feet. Effective weight of the glacial till below 53 feet should be set at 67 pcf, and LPILE soil type
should be set at “Stiff Clay w/ Free Water”.
2. Default values are the ones that LPILE program selects automatically during data entry while using the LPILE program.
3. In designing to resist uplift loading, 2/3 of the allowable side resistance values could be used along with the effective weight of the drilled shaft.
4. A drilled shaft should penetrate at least one shaft diameter (1D) into the bearing stratum, and at least 10 feet or 4D (whichever greater) below grade, when designing for
allowable end bearing pressure.